Values such as sportsmanship, drive and community are not only central but they are also experienced by the participants.

SPORTS HEROES

Heroes inspire us because they achieved the extraordinary. Their personal stories make them recognisable to all of us. Heroes evoke memories. They are not made after one achievement. They achieve their status by repeating results. That makes them superhuman.

No ambiguity there

For mine, the acknowledgment that the likes of Virenque and Jalabert are welcomed so why not Armstrong or Ullrich is a step in the right direction. Either we totally ostracise every cheating scumbag regardless of nationality or we accept and celebrate the achievements on the bike of all equally.

Noooo - if a rider is compassionate and genuinely is giving back to cycling then I am very open to welcome their positive contribution.

But if they are self-absorbed and self-promotional scumbags who still mouth off others, do everything they can do to continue to personally profit and don't even have the decency to attempt to make amends or give back to the sport from which they stole so much... then they deserve exclusion and contempt.

AUbicycles wrote:Noooo - if a rider is compassionate and genuinely is giving back to cycling then I am very open to welcome their positive contribution.

But if they are self-absorbed and self-promotional scumbags who still mouth off others, do everything they can do to continue to personally profit and don't even have the decency to attempt to make amends or give back to the sport from which they stole so much... then they deserve exclusion and contempt.

I saw a video made by Floyd Landis ...this cretin was standing at the Tom Simpson memorial on Mont Ventoux while there was a memorial service happening and he was calling Tom Simpson "Bart Simpson" and saying the most incredibly disrespectful things about Tom. I swear I have never seen anything more effed up in my life and no matter what Landis does or says in the future he will always be a POS in my eyes. Tommy Simpson was a legend and a champion.

I guess everyone has an opinion about dopers and doping. For myself I guess I see things on a sliding scale through history. In the very early days doping was not illegal and the drugs they took were hardly performance enhancing. Strychnine, alcohol, amphetamines possibly inhibited performance more than they added to it. On the other end of the scale, post EPO era we DO have things that can turn a donkey into a racehorse, EPO, blood transfusions, steroids etc.The death of Tom Simpson caused a shake up of the system and authorities began to look for ways to ban drugs and test for illegal sunstances. I find it difficult to be critical of riders who were before this time. I know for certain that many ethical cyclists such as Mockridge refused to touch drugs, however many did. It was a different time and a different culture. For myself, what happened in the 40s, 50s and early 60s does not really worry me too much. Of course I admire the guys who had the guts to take an ethical stand when most didnt. My uncle told me he never took a drug and the six day scene was a haven for them. To take drugs today is inexcusable and anyone who does should be rubbed out for life. That is the other end of the scale. Performance enhancing drugs now are sophisticated and require a level of medical and scientific expertise plus deliberate planning. It is systematic cheating.Somewhere in the middle we have guys like Merckx or Riis who have admitted they doped and have asked for forgiveness and a chance to put back into the sport. I have no problem with that either. Its disappointing but there was a culture there which unfortunately they were caught up in. Armstrong was post-EPO and his years of denial and lies are unforgivable really. I find it hard to listen to anything he says.

Aussies Stephen Hodge, Neil Stevens, Stuart O'Grady, Matt White all doped and have held / continue to hold office in cycling organisations and teams. Others have denied doping when it is quite obvious they did. I understand that in team culture you either were on the program or you didnt have a job. So I have some sympathy. And if I hated every cyclist who ever took a drug, well that doesnt leave many to look up to. I do admire the ones who were clean, and I accept the apologies of those who were in a team program and were coerced and under the impression everyone was doing it.

My issue with Landis is not that he took drugs, but that he now hates the sport and hates the great champions. He was not a champion, he was a nobody who took drugs and was rightfully shamed when he was caught. He's shown no remorse, just bitterness at being caught out.

Derny Driver wrote:My issue with Landis is not that he took drugs, but that he now hates the sport and hates the great champions. ... He's shown no remorse, just bitterness at being caught out.

Ironically, the upside of his attitude is that he insisted on dragged the WADA/CAS system out into the sun. Not pretty (I followed the whole thing on line at the time) and it worries me that young competitors have no choice but to sign up for the same system.

While he may have rattled if you shook him, it seems he was "done" for a drug that he may not have been using at the time. Doubly ironic.

AUbicycles wrote:Noooo - if a rider is compassionate and genuinely is giving back to cycling then I am very open to welcome their positive contribution.

But if they are self-absorbed and self-promotional scumbags who still mouth off others, do everything they can do to continue to personally profit and don't even have the decency to attempt to make amends or give back to the sport from which they stole so much... then they deserve exclusion and contempt.

But there are still some who believe he was clean...

I don't disagree with you Christopher, not at all. But in what way is White, O'Grady or Virenque ....to name a few.....giving back to the sport? I see a group of ex riders making a living out of their knowledge and experience who would probably be unemployed if they didn't have any way to earn in cycling. There's no altruism there. Virenque in particular strikes me as a person who needs the love. They are smart enough to not pursue the attention however; not like Armstrong (and seemingly most Americans caught doping) does.

Best make the point again...i'm not a fan of Armstrong. Floyd.....now he has a strange attraction for me, for all of the reasons that Derny dislikes him actually. No one who loves cycling and it's traditions was going to burn the house down as he did. Much the same as Hamilton. I guess the Americans just don't have that same sense of history that Europeans do. Well, all bar Froomay....

O’Grady is a tough one as he still visible in cycling (and didn’t inhale). I certainly turned off as I see redemption in an active volunteer role such as a race official supporting other upcoming riders and a humble approach. He is certainly no cynic but I have to be fair in saying I don’t know enough to say that there is a selfless contribution to the sport... that is probably for others to say... but I feel redemption is possible through acknowledgement and contribution to make the sport better.

For White, very difficult me to say, my hope is that he is providing the right guidance to all of his riders and can make a change to a lot of riders who can be influenced.

After all, even if some riders think that they were only teeth in the big turning cog, they still played their part so need to contribute to help shift gears.

While I'd like stronger regulation about former dopers involvement in the sport, the reality is the regulations didn't exist at the time of peak dope and retrospective regulation is never usually a good thing. WADA only came into force in 1999 and the code has gone through a few iterations since then.

The regulations now are that anyone *currently* serving a doping sanction cannot be involved in any capacity with cycling events. So that means those who did serve a sanction that has now completed are free to be involved. Personally I think that's too weak as people in a position of influence can do far more damage and perpetuate the culture than they can as a lone rider (with some obvious exceptions being clear team leaders). But that's what we have.

Armstrong received a life sanction as a result of his intransigence - he had the option to cooperate and receive a more normal limited sanction - hence he will never be permitted to be involved in any capacity with any event held under UCI sanction. In this case the sanctions won't apply to Armstrong (they can't add to a life ban), but they can apply to the event itself.

End of the day, increasing sanctions won't really do much, as the sanctions would work very effectively if the risk of being caught was sufficiently high. Unfortunately it's not.

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:While I'd like stronger regulation about former dopers involvement in the sport, the reality is the regulations didn't exist at the time of peak dope and retrospective regulation is never usually a good thing. WADA only came into force in 1999 and the code has gone through a few iterations since then.

I guess my questions are more to the public attitude rather than the "official".

The judgement (or otherwise) of dopers (or perceived doping) is a personal thing which I do understand yet have trouble with. Different countries approach the issue in different ways and different nationalities do the same. It's all too easy to jump on armstrong....l'americain....there was nothing glamorous nor traditional in the way he and Postal/Disco/Radio Shack went about their winning. I think that Froomay suffers the same problems, whereas Wiggins is perceived to have a love and respect for the sport and will probably survive beyond Froomay.

Anquetil is a great example of the public's ability to ignore the reality. Argued with a Gov. minister on TV over the issue; even De Gaulle backed him. Feted until his death, where every other TDF luminary attended. Ok, so the attitudes were different then....I accept that. So why are he and Tom Simpson still admired? Because of their love for the sport? The history? Pantani is loved because he was vulnerable and looked good on a bike?

That's a tough one - the public now know more and more about what goes on. Charisma doesn't fix it all but it goes a long way in purveying a personality.

This is what a lot of targeted athletes do - they use their charisma for their defence and ask the media/fans, "how could a person like me possibly dope and possibly mislead you....". It is like so many situations where the high-flyer is caught with their pants down but 'how could they have every possibly done anything wrong'? Or, 'everyone was doing it and I didn't inhale'.

I find it entirely frustrating as I want to see the goodness and positivity in the sport but I have a lingering scepticism.

fat and old wrote:Anquetil is a great example of the public's ability to ignore the reality. Argued with a Gov. minister on TV over the issue; even De Gaulle backed him. Feted until his death, where every other TDF luminary attended. Ok, so the attitudes were different then....I accept that. So why are he and Tom Simpson still admired? Because of their love for the sport? The history? Pantani is loved because he was vulnerable and looked good on a bike?

You've answered you own question when you said 'attitudes were different then".In 2018 we have decades of drug misuse, drug cheats, scandals which colour our view of these great champions of the past. Back then, the public didnt care about drugs. They didnt know about them, they didnt know what they did, they didnt care. On a list of interesting things to do with cycling, drugs ranked in last place. No internet, no information, no interest. It was not a topic of conversation.You want to know why Anquetil was feted? He was feted for the same reason Cancellara was feted. Because he was the greatest time trialler of his era, because of his courage, his race ethic, his amazing performances (too many to mention). He enjoyed rock star status, he was handsome, a magnificent physical specimen and owned his own Lear Jet to take him to races. Pre-TV, the French public were enthralled by the radio and newspaper reports of his exploits which even today are absolutely mind blowing. Simpson? Never before had an Englishman made any impact on the Continental scene which was dominated by the Europeans. Tom won the Rainbow jersey and everything he did was all class. Anquetil was Master Jacques, and Simpson was Mister Tom. He was the darling of the English speaking world, he wore a bowler hat, had excellent manners and rode every race with great courage and panache. He changed the face of cycling from being a European in-house thing to the true international sport which we see today. The fact that he and many others took drugs, when they were not illegal, was of little consequence. His death was due heat stroke and severe dehydration which was probably exacerbated by alcohol (yes they drank alcohol during races) and amphetamines. No-one cared till Tom died on the Ventoux. Then the public, who had lost their idol, realised there was a problem.And Pantani? Do you need to ask why he was popular? Mate, who doesnt love a pirate! He rode with flair and panache, he attacked up the mountains with a eff you attitude. He was Italian for goodness sake. He was Coppi ...he was Cippolini ...he was a god. He took drugs? meh. Who cares.

People looking at previous cycling eras with the benefit of hidsight and their 2018 glasses on care.I dont. I have read enough stories to put myself back there in history, and accept it for what it was.

fat and old wrote:Anquetil is a great example of the public's ability to ignore the reality. Argued with a Gov. minister on TV over the issue; even De Gaulle backed him. Feted until his death, where every other TDF luminary attended. Ok, so the attitudes were different then....I accept that. So why are he and Tom Simpson still admired? Because of their love for the sport? The history? Pantani is loved because he was vulnerable and looked good on a bike?

You've answered you own question when you said 'attitudes were different then".In 2018 we have decades of drug misuse, drug cheats, scandals which colour our view of these great champions of the past. Back then, the public didnt care about drugs. They didnt know about them, they didnt know what they did, they didnt care. On a list of interesting things to do with cycling, drugs ranked in last place. No internet, no information, no interest. It was not a topic of conversation.You want to know why Anquetil was feted? He was feted for the same reason Cancellara was feted. Because he was the greatest time trialler of his era, because of his courage, his race ethic, his amazing performances (too many to mention). He enjoyed rock star status, he was handsome, a magnificent physical specimen and owned his own Lear Jet to take him to races. Pre-TV, the French public were enthralled by the radio and newspaper reports of his exploits which even today are absolutely mind blowing. Simpson? Never before had an Englishman made any impact on the Continental scene which was dominated by the Europeans. Tom won the Rainbow jersey and everything he did was all class. Anquetil was Master Jacques, and Simpson was Mister Tom. He was the darling of the English speaking world, he wore a bowler hat, had excellent manners and rode every race with great courage and panache. He changed the face of cycling from being a European in-house thing to the true international sport which we see today. The fact that he and many others took drugs, when they were not illegal, was of little consequence. His death was due heat stroke and severe dehydration which was probably exacerbated by alcohol (yes they drank alcohol during races) and amphetamines. No-one cared till Tom died on the Ventoux. Then the public, who had lost their idol, realised there was a problem.And Pantani? Do you need to ask why he was popular? Mate, who doesnt love a pirate! He rode with flair and panache, he attacked up the mountains with a eff you attitude. He was Italian for goodness sake. He was Coppi ...he was Cippolini ...he was a god. He took drugs? meh. Who cares.

Hey, I ain't gonna disagree with you on any of that. Maybe the manliness of Anquetil is going a bit far but that's cool.

People looking at previous cycling eras with the benefit of hidsight and their 2018 glasses on care.I dont. I have read enough stories to put myself back there in history, and accept it for what it was.

I tend to accept the whole history of cycling for what it is I guess. I've said it before.....either ban and exclude everyone who breaks the rules, or no one. simples. Elsewhere another poster has said lets go open slather, and asks what's a level playing field? Easy. Either all go nuts, or compete on the day as you are. None of this "I'm only reaching my potential" guff. Potential means jack if you need medication to reach it. You're supposed to reach your potential, not human potential. If sickness, defects or gentics precludes you from being the best, then tough.

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:While I'd like stronger regulation about former dopers involvement in the sport, the reality is the regulations didn't exist at the time of peak dope and retrospective regulation is never usually a good thing. WADA only came into force in 1999 and the code has gone through a few iterations since then.

I guess my questions are more to the public attitude rather than the "official".

As DD said, from a public perspective it's a different ball game.

Some criminals are/were historically popular too.

I still maintain that having so many dopers in charge of running the sport or teams or in control of young lives is hampering efforts to change the culture of what is right/wrong in today's world.

There is a balance because these former dopers also know how the sport works (it's not all about the doping) and some can mature and change their ethical stance and constructively contribute, but not all of them.

And let's not forget the people who did not get the opportunity to be part of the sport, as a rider, a DS, a soigneur, a coach etc because they wouldn't play by the "rules" of the day, doping and omerta was not their gig. These are the people that didn't advance and gain experience and so are not involved today. A lot of very good and capable people were rubbed out of the sport by those willing to push aside ethical concerns. They are forever lost to the sport.

I don't know Lance Armstrong personally. I have heard he was an arrogant character but that's about it. And while it's fun to poke fun at Armstrong, how many of you can name ALL the others who were doping at that time? Or don't they matter? Maybe ask why NO winners were awarded the Tour de France title in those years.

About time Armstrong was stopped being used as a scapegoat. Given the amount of doping going on in that era, it's questionable that you'd even call it cheating.

I'm not defending the guy but for god's sake, GIVE IT A REST! He was FAR from the only one.

BJL wrote:I don't know Lance Armstrong personally. I have heard he was an arrogant character but that's about it. And while it's fun to poke fun at Armstrong, how many of you can name ALL the others who were doping at that time? Or don't they matter? Maybe ask why NO winners were awarded the Tour de France title in those years.

About time Armstrong was stopped being used as a scapegoat. Given the amount of doping going on in that era, it's questionable that you'd even call it cheating.

I'm not defending the guy but for god's sake, GIVE IT A REST! He was FAR from the only one.

It's not so much WHAT he did, as you and many others have pointed out, they had their hands in the pot as well, but it is more about HOW he did it.

BJL wrote:I don't know Lance Armstrong personally. I have heard he was an arrogant character but that's about it. And while it's fun to poke fun at Armstrong, how many of you can name ALL the others who were doping at that time? Or don't they matter? Maybe ask why NO winners were awarded the Tour de France title in those years.

About time Armstrong was stopped being used as a scapegoat. Given the amount of doping going on in that era, it's questionable that you'd even call it cheating.

I'm not defending the guy but for god's sake, GIVE IT A REST! He was FAR from the only one.

Im sitting on the side of the fence you are, while it may not be a popular view, and yes he cheated at the time it seems he was far from the only one, only those people in the inner circle will know for certain, but from the limited i have read and researched i would speculate that it would be over 50% were doping in some form or another.

Now, even though Lance was doping does this take anything away from his competitive spirit his training ethic, his natural athletic ability? Yes doping/juicing gives you advantage but to get the most from it, it gives you the ability to train harder and longer and push yourself further, it does not take an average rider or sportsman and turn them into phenom and world beater overnight by just using, you have to do the training behind it.

Honestly i think i would be different if he was the only one that got busted, however, it is pretty widely known at that period it was just the way business was done, the fact Lance did it better then everyone else and got the results over such a long period of time makes people jealous.

Does anyone think if Lance only 1 or 2 maybe 3 Tours he would have got busted or the level of investigation gone so deep to expose everything? I for one certainly dont.

BJL, his role was different frim just being a participating doper, he used his power to impact the careers of others even intimidating and isolating riders from other teams. He took away the livelihood of others and lied under oath abd cost others a lot of money. He created significant financial gain on his fraud.

BJL wrote:I don't know Lance Armstrong personally. I have heard he was an arrogant character but that's about it. And while it's fun to poke fun at Armstrong, how many of you can name ALL the others who were doping at that time? Or don't they matter? Maybe ask why NO winners were awarded the Tour de France title in those years.

About time Armstrong was stopped being used as a scapegoat. Given the amount of doping going on in that era, it's questionable that you'd even call it cheating.

I'm not defending the guy but for god's sake, GIVE IT A REST! He was FAR from the only one.

Like many others I have followed the scandal before and after it was finally settled.

So while I too do not know him personally, I do know that Armstrong was not just another drug cheat doing what the rest did. His actions, his predatory behavior, his willingness to put all others under the bus and his manipulation of the system, the media, the authorities were exceptional, even among a host of others cheating.

There is reason that Armstrong was described as "the ringleader of the most sophisticated doping conspiracy in sporting history". He was NOT like other cheats and his influence was exceptional.

Even his "charity work" seems to have been self-serving, notwithstanding that some benefit accrued to a great many cancer sufferers.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.